Tweet
Taxpayer money funds police patrol of bull statue (photo: David Shankbone)
The excessive and gratuitous use of police at Occupy protests, especially in New York and other large cities, has led a number of people to wonder how cities are paying for the police to patrol demonstrations and encampments. Now, with a report from AP circulating, those who despise the Occupy movement or have grown impatient with it have ammunition to lash out even more.
According to AP, the movement has cost “local taxpayers at least $13 million in police overtime and other municipal services.” AP finds the “heaviest financial burden has fallen upon law enforcement agencies tasked with monitoring marches and evicting protesters from outdoor camps. And the steepest costs by far piled up in New York City and Oakland, Calif., where police clashed with protesters on several occasions.”
The findings, AP concludes, are “more or less in line with the cost of policing major public events and emergencies.” Nonetheless, AP adds, “the price of the protests” is drawing the “ire” of taxpayers in cities. The report notes, “Cash-strapped police departments have cut overtime budgets, travel and training to respond to the recession. Nonetheless, city officials say they have no choice but to bring in extra officers or hold officers past their shifts to handle gatherings and marches in a way that protects free speech rights and public safety. In some cities, officials say the spending is eating into their overtime budgets and leaving less money for other public services.”
AP goes on to mention how money has been saved by cities. For example, in Des Moines, the parks department has saved money because Occupy Des Moines takes their garbage out and, when the first snow fell in Iowa, they shoveled the sidewalk. Protesters agreed to pay the “full cost of their electricity usage.” But the AP report follows that up with an example that suggests many of the occupations are not “good neighbors” at all.
The impetus of the report is that police resources are being strained by the continued assembling of citizens all over the country. In some cases, police forces are considering cutting back internally to absorb the costs. All this exercising of First Amendment rights is costing Americans because of “public safety” concerns and the need to “protect free speech rights.”
Attaching a dollar amount to the movement at a time when cities and states all over the country are facing debt can only turn Americans against the Occupy movement if Americans do not understand why so much taxpayer money is being expended. That may be of great help to a number of cities, which understand there is wide support for the camp so they have to watch how they contain and crack down on occupiers.
All of this raises a series of questions: Why should the New York Police Department (NYPD) be used to fortify Wall Street so casino capitalists who collapsed the economy in 2008 do not have to face protesting Americans? Why should the NYPD be used to mass a squadron of officers and police vehicles around any demonstration, which inevitably creates a crowd control issue that turns into a situation where NYPD officers beat or shove protesters and arrest those who do not budge when mistreated?
Why should taxpayers subsidize a massive police operation to evict peaceful protesters from a park when they have been there for nearly two months and have earned much support from New York City residents? Why should taxpayers have to foot the tab for police officers who improperly and coldly use pepper spray on protesters? Why should they have to pay for officers who fire off flash bang grenades in the midst of peaceful assemblies? Why should they have to pay for officers who slink back to avoid being spotted when they fire off a tear gas canister right at the head of an Iraq War veteran, who then goes to the hospital with a brain injury?
Why should they foot the bill for the pepper-spraying of an 84-year old woman, who becomes so disoriented from the spray that she has to be saved by an Iraq War veteran nearby who keeps her from falling over and being trampled? Why should taxpayers support the use of funds to violate freedom of the press by arresting journalists at demonstrations? Why should taxpayers pay for police officers that are going to brutalize pregnant women and give them a miscarriage? Why should taxpayers pay for police who stand around and seize and destroy property from citizens who are demonstrating, like books, tents, insulating materials, a food cart or even a truck?
Both city and state police in Albany have been reluctant to spend unnecessary amounts of resources on peaceful protesting. Albany police leaders, according to the Albany Times Union, were willing to hold off making arrests for the “low-level offense of trespassing, in part because of concern it could incite a riot or draw thousands of protesters in a backlash that could endanger police and the public.”
“We don’t have those resources, and these people were not causing trouble,” the official said. “The bottom line is the police know policing, not the governor and not the mayor.”
A city police source said his department also was reluctant to damage what he considers to be good community relations that have taken years to rebuild. In addition, the crowd included elderly people and many others who brought their children with them.
“There was a lot of discussion about how it would look if we started pulling people away from their kids and arresting them … and then what do we do with the children?” one officer said.
The Portland Police, which have been forceful in handling Occupy protests, have figured out there is a better way. The Oregonian reports the police “will be limiting police presence at Occupy Portland rallies.” Portland Police Chief Mike Reese said in a statement, “Officers will first ask protesters if they need police escort. If they don’t, they’ll be asked to self-police, and officers will respond only if there are complaints.”
It is true that there have been reports of incidents of crime at encampments. But consider the following: the NYPD was telling drunks to “take it to Zuccotti” or likely dropping off criminals at Zuccotti Park. Is this something taxpayers wish to be paying for? New York’s finest standing around and not arresting these people, which Bloomberg and others would characterize as “safety concerns”?
After visiting multiple occupations, I think any police force that finds is is not responsible for lawlessness or violent behavior in camps is grossly appalling. No camps oppose police arresting individuals whose crimes are making it difficult for them to occupy.
If the camps are expected to abide by city codes, ordinances and laws, then they most certainly deserve the protection of the police. Additionally, police should be working with organizers to police the area. Each camp has a security or safety team and can tell officers about what happens on a daily basis and who needs to be watched closely to prevent conflicts from escalating sharply.
No doubt, city leaders and state leaders will seize upon this report to justify the shut down of more camps in the country. They will promote this notion that the movement has made its point and been out for two months now and now it is time to pack up and go home (of course, many have no homes to go to; the camps are their home).
The First Amendment does not have an expiration date. It does not cease to protect citizens who dissent against their government because millions of dollars are spent. If cities or states cannot afford policing, that should not be blamed on Occupy protesters. It should be blamed on city and state governments for choosing to sign off on the asymmetric and expensive deployment of police for use in military-style operations to crackdown on the movement. It should be blamed on cities and states that refuse to respect and trust their own citizens and pay officers to babysit camps that are fully capable of calling police, firefighters or emergency medical services if they need assistance.
48 Comments
Fine catch, Kevin!
The linked AP report indicates that the amount cities spend on policing Occupy sites is largely their choice:
“St. Louis; Des Moines, Iowa; Providence, R.I.; and Burlington, Vt., were among the cities surveyed by AP that reported costs of less than $10,000.”
St. Louis, Des Moines, and Providence are no pikers. So, Ray Kelly: no whining!
The AP quotes Don Tripp, the parks director in Des Moines, on what I’d say is the right attitude for a public official in a democracy:
“But at the end of the day, the thing that has been in the back of my mind is that during times of public discourse in our country parks are noted for being places where people have the chance to demonstrate their First Amendment rights,” he said. “I think their use has been consistent with that.”
Protecting Americans’ 1st Amendment rights saves those very same American taxpayers’ money. Fancy that.
Yep, I note the example of Des Moines, Iowa, in the post.
Okay – now to get up the live blog post for today …
This was probably posted yesterday and I missed it. Thought I would post it here.
Time to take back the 1st…
I saw Reich expressing these views on TV the other day. Without explicitly making the argument, he is basically taking the position I’ve espoused here, and have communicated to the NLG, that what we are seeing is a violation of the equal protection clause of the same 14th Amendemnt that was misconstrued to accord personhood to corporations, leading to the Citizens United ruling that their form of speech deserved blanket protection. I’ve not seen any other public expressions in support of that argument, and this just reminds me that I need to follow up with the NLG, and also reach out to the ACLU, as I’ve seen no sign that they are utilizing the argument in their current litigations. I think it is a good argument, and also opens the door to an indirect attack on the atrocity of the corporate personhood concept itself.
Kevin, great post. Really hits all the bases. Good on you.
The first reason listed in the Preamble to The Constitution of the United States, the first reason for breaking away from King George,….”In order to form a MORE PERFECT UNION. This is listed before, common defense, or promote the general welfare.
The concept of publicly owned property seems foreign to many people.
If citizens do not have any public property upon which to assemble for airing of greivences…..well…….??
The Occupy movement has been a great success in most ways. It pushed the convesation in the direction it has to go, but its not the solution. As a begginning its a good thing but it it has to be a sign pointing to what the country should be talking about, not itself the topic. Now its an easy target. These scum will spend millions (of tax payer dollars) to crush it. Move to something else before they can
It’s worth noting that the “citizens” these cops are protecting most assiduously are corporate “citizens”, many of whom end up paying little or no income tax.
Also worth noting: “Freedom isn’t free.” You’d think that people willing to support young people overseas killing and dying supposedly in the name of freedom wouldn’t begrudge a little extra in taxes to support freedom in a less-bloody way on the home front.
High fivin’ ya! “Think free speech is expensive? Try surviving without it in a corporation driven dictatorship.”
Occupy may be our last chance to create a democracy.
Well gosh, if we keep on protesting, they’ll eventually run out of money for more pepper spray. Wouldn’t that be awful?
Yep. I was hoping a separate post on his piece might end up here. His points are profound.
Tap homeland security funds , they’re good for it.
The argument that the financial cost of repressing free speech means that the speech must end is absolutely contrary to the founding principles of our country.
the rampant greed displayed in the world today is not new, we tend to think that because we are alive now, things are different. people used to build forts to defend against greed. in the u s we decided to form a “Perfect Union” as our tool to combat greed. there is nothing un american about publicly owned, funded and operated common property. next on their list, the usps……they want to dump it because it is not “profitable”……well fuck you…..is the military profitable, is the fire dept profitable, police……profitable? parks…..hell the list can go on……LET US STOP FALLING IN THIS TRAP………I DO NOT MAKE MY VALUE JUDGEMENTS BASED ON FINANCIAL PROFIT…..when that is done…..we have the screwed up mess of today…….realizing a “profit” does not equate to.’RIGHT’ we formed this country to do good and right……..not make a fucking profit
Definitely .. Homeland Security should pay all expenses, especially since it is coming out that they (and others) are coordinating these outrages.
Plus factor in all the massive law suits that really must come out of this. No more token $1. settlements.
Sue the pants off the police and whoever else promotes this. I’m sure the Civil Rights lawyers are all over this like ducks on a junebug !
Nice concise way of putting it.
Just for kicks, because I am not opposed to the Second Amendment, imagine the response if someone made this same economic argument re that Amendment.
I’m glad to see this subject brought to the forefront.
I’ve been particularly (irrationally?) aggravated by the “meta” aspects as well as the micro-aspects of these “cost” pronouncements. They are, one one level, neatly-packaged and very instructive examples of the seamless fusion of authority and propaganda. Rhetorically speaking, a few more violent arrests of press members will, IMHO, guarantee the unexamined proliferation of this class of propaganda eagerly produced and “legitimized” by the “4th Estate”.
In my own effort to convert emotion to action, I’ve been scouring available materials on public projects, really public/private activities, that can serve as counter-examples to one or more of the sub-textual premises swaddled in the propagandists’ messaging. For example, here in Portland there’s a rather stark example that surfaces “officialdom’s” willingness to tolerate – even trumpet – blight, neglect, the wanton waste of public funds, burdens to small and medium sized businesses, the affirmative forgoing of tax revenues and public safety. The example is the massive, one square block hole haphazardly populated with abandon construction remnants – in other words – the “thrice” delayed Park Avenue West Tower commercial/residential development project.
Another is Portland’s Morrison Bridge repair and upgrade project. At present, a “contractual dispute” has kept the project unfinished and idle for months and will likely remain so for months to come. For the uninitiated, Portland Morrison Bridge is one of “Bridgetown’s” more important access routes connecting the commercial hubs of Portland’s east & west sides, feeding both I-5 and I-84 and is (was?) a primary conduit for a large number of bus and transit routes serving downtown. The bridge stands – at best – partially accessible,
Intending to use these 2 mismanaged yet officially tolerated failings as counter-weights to the OWS/cost propaganda, I have begun to gather and coalesce numbers with an eye toward arriving at a quantitatively defensible “cost” to the tax payer. Life being what it is have variously interrupted my progress.
I suspect that every “Occupy” location is also rich with similar examples of officialdom’s failings.
Anyhow, that’s my tale and, I hope, it’s taken by Kevin as a loud and enthusiastic “kudos” for bringing this manifestation of anti-demos, anti-democratic propaganda to the forefront of the dynamic real-time history of “Occupy”. I hope you have the time, or motivate others, to keep this counter-narrative alive.
I can understand having some officers around to make sure that people don’t walk in the streets and get injured etc. but it has not been necessary at any demonstration by OWS to bring in the Darth Vader troops. It’s wasteful, expensive and useless. It also violates the right to speech.
Great Post Kevin!! Keep up the great Reporting!! Your live streamings are fantastic!
Nice picture. You know, if the powers that be really need money all that badly, perhaps they should think about melting down that golden calf they worship. I’ve heard that works wonders when you want to get your god’s favor back. Read it in an old book somewhere.
On KGO this morning all they were talking about was the cost of OWS and the loses to small businesses surrounding it.
ThinkProgress has an article up now along the same lines. Here’s a few nice cherries to pick out of it:
$13M is chump change on a National and 2 month basis.
It should cost a lot more than it does to suppress and deny our constitutional rights. I hope the costs will escalate exponentially.
IMO, it’s not about “public safety” at all, but rather about the guilty consciences of the 1%, who know full well what they would do to anyone who did to them what they have done to the 99%. That is the only reason all those men with guns are needed.
This is easily “countered” with listing the costs of corp run elections…
Corp lobbying overriding citizen rights…
Corp pushing for privatization…
Really, come on, violent police costs are going to “media play” better than the theft of free speech?
Will. Not. Work.
Peace will win.
Check out KellyC @ 23 for an example.
I don’t think I made my point very well, sorry. What I was trying to say is that the police could have handled the entire thing with probably 5 or 10 officers at any place. I keep remembering a picture I saw from Occupy Tucson – about 7 people sitting on the sidewalk talking and probably 25 to 40 officers just standing there looking at them. Silliest thing I’ve ever seen.
Another thought, briefly.
Has anyone had the idea to review the infamous Petraeus-authored DoD guide on conducting counter-insurgencies?
What occurs to me is that that document provides detailed qualitative and quantitative data as to the proper ratio of “troops” to population in a variety of scenarios. As such, it might serve as a useful and (potentially) unimpeachable source to demonstrate that our local constabularies (with the backing of Federal forces – uniformed and covert) are reacting to citizens peacefully expressing themselves in accord with the 1st Amd in a manner that’s disproportionately violent, politically repressive and – for the bean counters – enormously wasteful.
Time is not my own at present, so despite my interest I must punt.
“Each camp has a security or safety team and can tell officers about what happens on a daily basis and who needs to be watched closely to prevent conflicts from escalating sharply.” Actually, it can work both ways, the Sacramento PD bicycle cops who patrol Cesar Chevez Park daily and are very familiar with the homeless (and others) who frequent the park would tell me who the likely suspects were that might cause us a problem. We shared info or intell if you will, even to the point of them IDing to me the known drug dealers who hung out at the park, and it made things easier and better for both of us. All they asked of us is that we do as much self-policing as we possible.
A good article on just what the local Cops have in their arsenal!! Next will be M1-A1 Tanks to quell the protesters!!
You made your point very well, and I agreed with it absolutely. I was just adding a further point. Happy Thanksgiving to you, Twain.
loosely related note: would love, love, love to see the ‘crime log’ for any of these cities during any one of major police actions — imagine being a crew of petty thieves/burglars on the night of that first major police action in Oakland — it must’ve been like Christmas
thanks Kevin !
Those cities made the choice to meet a peaceful protest with a militarized police force. As btcaltech points out, it doesn’t have to be the way NY and the others confronted the protesters. For everyone, it would have been cheaper to provide a few porta-potties and a couple of dumpsters and to have done some community outreach with the OWS.
that Darth Vader thing – they have been ‘incentivized’ for a long time – I can recall polite golf claps for Clinton’s “community policing” – sounded so groovy, didn’t it — well, ol cbl did some serious reading during the Just Say Now campaign – and there was nothing groovy about it – it was basically, mo money, mo money, mo money for arrests period – not serious or violent crime arrests just arrests -and the $$ would flow — and now we have almost a generation of law enforcement that doesn’t know and doesn’t care the difference
a lot like what we have done to our public schools – funding hangs on testing – one nation under a contractor
forgive the gross generalizations – it’s something been weighing on me for a while and I hope a wonkier, weedier type would take up the subject
Great job Kevin. You deserve a medal.
Kevin, I agree with popyeye. I would add the Pulitzer, if that doesn’t offend you?
How much does it really cost society to “protect” all the BULL …. anyhow?
DW
The inevitable lawsuits that will be a result of the injured by excessive force may equal or exceed that being spent to use the unlawful excessive force. Oh wait, that would be if we still had the rule of law. But we don’t so we’ll end paying for both and even if you won in court and were awarded damages where do you think THAT MONEY would come from? Something tells me it won’t come from the $2.4 million that Chase bank gave to the NYPD foundation. Or in case of UC Davis it will just be passed on in tuition fes.
“We don’t have those resources,…” Not relevant.
“….. and these people were not causing trouble,” Most relevant
Pulitzer
All Occupy locations state from the beginning that they are peacefully protesting. They are policing themselves to be good citizens who happen to be protesting. It is not necessary for police departments to spend any money patrolling the Occupy movements other than to look out for the safety of the protesters. It is as though the police forces are inciting and inflaming the atmosphere around the protesters. The police and police forces are protesting the protests–only they use the arm of the law to abuse the Occupy protesters.Something is very wrong with this picture. Would police protest poetry reading for Arts In The Park? Would police protest a group of Red Hat grandmas in a park?
You can bet the farm that if protesters try to take down the chainlink/barbwire fence Reese encircled the two Portland public parks with, and peacefully occupy them again, he won’t hesitate in calling out hundreds of cops from here to Salem again, no matter how much overtime or cost is involved. This “nice guy to rallies” routine is sickening. The unstated ground rule in his statement is that the protesters had better not occupy the parks again.
“If the camps are expected to abide by city codes, ordinances and laws, then they most certainly deserve the protection of the police. Additionally, police should be working with organizers to police the area.”
The police are not protecting the OWSers. They are protecting everyone else FROM the OWSers. That’s warranted given the hundreds of cases of crime that have been reported at these camps. These camps are a regular magnetic for illegal activity cloaked as free speech.
So, you think the OWs people are the biggest threat that we need the police to protect us from? You, sir, are a major boob.
Indeed! The high cost of police oppression is a feature, not a bug, in my view. As Madame pointed out when this argument was first articulated on TV, if it’s so expensive, why don’t they just stop?
Oops. Wrong comment. Should have been warp9 at #10.
I never said the biggest threat, did I? But the OWSers are attracting thugs and acting that way themselves. The cops are there to police them much more than they are there to protect them.
This is the kind of story that puts my heart on my sleeve (and in my throat) and strengthens my resolve to promote our cause. At this time of year especially, I am thankful to live in America while weeping for my country at the same time and hoping to see her reach her full potential. From Des Moines…keep up the good fight. Dutch.
If OWS isn’t the biggest threat, then the police should be deployed elsewhere. Can you follow that logic?